2002 PLP 2836 (PTD)
Syed QALLANDAR HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-II, COMPANY ZONE I; LAHORE and 3 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2836 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | Syed QALLANDAR HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-II, COMPANY ZONE I; LAHORE and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2836 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2836 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2836 (PTD) (Syed QALLANDAR HUSSAIN Versus INSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-II, COMPANY ZONE I; LAHORE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Zia H. Rizvi for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner, income tax assessee, filed a return of income for assessment year 1989-90. The return -was subject to scrutiny by an Inspecting Additional Commissioner, who vide order dated 23-5-1996 did not accept the value of the shop declared at Rs.5,30,000 and proceeded to evaluate the shop at Rs.18,30,
400. This resulted in addition in the income. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed by an Appellate Commissioner who reduced the value of shop from Rs.600 per sq. ft to Rs.3,900 per sq. ft. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, who dismissed the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prayer of his client was that value of shop be, fixed with reference to valuation table notified by the District Collector for the purposes of stamp duty. According to the learned counsel this rule of assessment is now a statutory measure in the form of rule 207-A of the Income Tax Rules, 1982. Ro-one has turned, up for the respondents. They are proceeded against ex pane.
3. I have gone through the file of this writ petition. I find that said rule 207-A was notified vide S.R.O. 550(I)/97, dated 25-7-1997. This appears to be a beneficial legislation inasmuch as discretion of the Assessing Officer/Authority stands curtailed and regulated. To my mind although the Rule was enacted at a point of time later than filing determination/consideration of the return, benefit of the said provision ought to have been given to the petitioner. Reference be made to the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others (1993 SCMR 73) Chief Justice Naseem Hasan Shah (as his lordship then was) observed in the leading opinion referred to para. 282 of "Statutory Construction" by Crawford (1940 Edition) to hold that a Statute relating to remedial law may properly, in several instances, be given retrospective operation.
4. In the present case rule 207-A is certainly a measure to soften the law in favour of taxpayer. The assessment was finalized on 23-5-1996. The Commissioner made his order on 9-4-1997. While matter was pending before the learned Member (Judicial Income Tax), C.B.R. the said Rule was enacted and since the remedy was available under section 138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, it can safely be said that the provision stood enacted during the pendency of the, proceedings, in the matter of said assessment. Learned Member, therefore, ought to have taken note of said rule 207-A and to have given benefit to the petitioner. This writ petition accordingly is allowed. The result would be that Revision Petitions Nos.8 (22 to 326) inasmuch as they pertain to valuation of the said shop shall be deemed to be pending before the said learned Member, who shall summon the parties and re-hear the matter in the light of observation made above and to decide that same. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to learned Member (Judicial Income Tax), Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad. S.A.K./Q-22/L Order accordingly.